See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282530781

Flood Hydrograph with Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Routing

Article  in  Water Resources Management · December 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-1145-1

CITATIONS READS

5 2,936

4 authors, including:

Mahendra Kumar Bhuyan Joygopal Jena

Department of water resources Gandhi Institute for Technological Advancement
7 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydro-power Planning and Analysis structures View project

Surface water hydrology: Analysis for Peak flood Estimation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahendra Kumar Bhuyan on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Flood Hydrograph with Synthetic Unit
Hydrograph Routing

M. K. Bhuyan, Sanjay Kumar, Joygopal

Jena & P. K. Bhunya

Water Resources Management

An International Journal - Published
for the European Water Resources
Association (EWRA)

ISSN 0920-4741
Volume 29
Number 15

Water Resour Manage (2015)

29:5765-5782
DOI 10.1007/s11269-015-1145-1

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Water Resour Manage (2015) 29:5765–5782
DOI 10.1007/s11269-015-1145-1

Flood Hydrograph with Synthetic Unit

Hydrograph Routing

M. K. Bhuyan 1 & Sanjay Kumar 2 & Joygopal Jena 3 &

P. K. Bhunya 4

Received: 6 December 2014 / Accepted: 15 September 2015 /

Published online: 29 September 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Synthetic unit hydrographs (SUH) based on geomorphology are used as a

tool to produce flood hydrographs from rainfall records, especially in ungauged and
partially gauged catchments. This study presents a flood hydrograph model formulated
on SUH based approach using geomorphologic parameters derived from Survey of
India maps and geographical information system (GIS) techniques to simulate basin
runoff. It uses linear Muskingum routing model in which the routing parameters are
determined from the kinematic approach rather than from runoff data. The model
employs the unit hydrograph suggested by Central Water Commission (CWC) India,
as the discharge data from the sub-catchments and routes the concurrent discharges
generated from them to the watershed outlet, and compared with the unit hydrograph
of the lumped catchment. Application of the model is demonstrated by using data of a
small watershed in the Mahanadi basin, India. The study indicates the limitations of
the CWC unit hydrograph approach both in the small hilly and large plane catch-
ments. It is observed that the CWC unit hydrograph (UH) underestimates the peak
discharges both for catchments smaller than 200 km2 with steeper slope and larger
than 600 km2 with flatter slope. The study further emphasizes on using two parameter
Gamma distribution for preparation of UH curve instead of adopting standard practice
of drawing synthetic unit hydrograph using seven known points with approximate
curve fitting.

Keywords Synthetic unit hydrograph . Routing . Geomorphology . Design flood . CWC

* M. K. Bhuyan
[email protected]

1
SOA University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India 751030
2
National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India 247667
3
ITER, SOA University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India 751030
4
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India 751024
 Author's personal copy
5766 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

1 Introduction

Unit hydrograph (UH) remains as a basic tool in the hands of hydrologist since Sherman
(1932) introduced it to represent the hydrologic response of ungauged watershed through
which effective rainfall is transformed to direct runoff. The UH is a surface runoff hydrograph
resulting from one unit of rainfall excess uniformly distributed spatially and temporally over
the watershed for the entire specified rainfall excess duration (Chow 1964). The concept of UH
has undergone many changes over time and is termed as instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH),
geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH), synthetic unit hydrograph
(SUH) based on the duration and stream and watershed properties respectively. In a
purely ungauged watershed, the paucity of observed rainfall runoff data sparkled the
idea of synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH) concept which are derived from watershed
characteristics rather than rainfall- runoff data. The examples of some of traditional
methods of SUHs as proposed by Snyder (1938), SCS (2002), Taylor and Schwarz
(1952), Gray (1964), Espey and Winslow (1974) are available to hydrologists and
these are region specific, simple, easy for development and requires less data. These
methods utilize a set of empirical equations relating to physical characteristics of
watershed to a few salient points of the hydrograph such as peak flow rate (qp), time
to peak (tp), time base (tb) and UH width at 0.5 and 0.75 qp. However, in SUH
development a great degree of subjectivity is involved in fitting the remaining points
on the SUH such that the area under the SUH reaches unity corresponding to unit
rainfall excess.
Due to similarity in the shape of statistical distributions and a conventional unit hydrograph,
several attempts have been made by different researches to derive the SUHs by using the
probability distribution functions (pdfs). Use of probability distribution function removes the
subjectivity of manual fitting of the points other than the salient points of unit hydrograph.
Nash (1959) and Dooge (1959) developed the general equation of the instantaneous unit
hydrograph (IUH) in the form of two parameter gamma distribution. Later on, two parameter
(2p) Gamma, three parameter (3p) Beta distribution have been successfully utilized in deriving
SUH for Indian and Turkey catchments (Haktanir and Sezen 1990; Bhunya et al. 2004) and the
parameters of these distributions are derived by the least square approach, non dimensional
approach along with suitable optimization techniques or any other suitable criteria. Jena and
Tiwari (2006) modeled the parameters of SUH using the geomorphologic parameters (channel
and basin parameters) for two watersheds of India deriving the data from Survey of India maps
using GIS techniques. They presented a nonlinear model correlating UH parameters with
geomorphologic parameters having higher degree of correlations with UH parameters. Rosso
(1984) adopted a parametric approach to define the form of IUH by relating the Nash model
parameters with the Horton ratios used by Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979). Bhunya et al.
(2008) further extended Rosso (1984) and derived expression for two parameter Weibull
distribution in describing the shape of the IUH and made a comparison between two parameter
Weibull distribution and two parameter gamma distribution using field data.
Central Water Commission (CWC 1997), India has presented synthetic unit hydrographs
for different sub zones to be used for determination of design flood of 25, 50 and 100 year
return period pertaining to small and medium catchments. It provides seven points of the 1 h
SUH which are tp (time to peak from centre of rainfall in hr), qp (peak discharge in cumec per
km2 catchment area), W50 (width at 0.5Qp in hr), W75 (width at 0.75Qp in hr), WR50 (width at
0.5Qp in hr of the rising limb), WR75 (width at 0.75Qp in hr of the rising limb) and tb (time base
 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5767

in hr). These UH parameters are related to geomorphologic parameters such as catchment area
‘A’ (km2), length of the main stream ‘L’ (km), length of the main stream from a point near the
centre of gravity of catchment to the outlet ‘Lc’ (km) and the equivalent slope ‘S’ (m/km) of
the main channel. The following equations are in practice for preparation of 1 h SUH for
Mahanadi Sub Zone (3d) for small and medium catchments of varying size up to 5000 sq.km.
 
LLc 0:261
tp ¼ 1:757 pffiffiffi ð1aÞ
S

 −0:725
qp ¼ 1:260 tp ð1bÞ

 −1:104
W 50 ¼ 1:974 qp ð1cÞ

 −1:125
W 75 ¼ 0:961 qp ð1dÞ

 −0:829
W R50 ¼ 1:150 qp ð1eÞ

 −0:932
W R75 ¼ 0:527 qp ð1f Þ

 0:826
t b ¼ 5:411 tp ð1gÞ

Qp ¼ qp : A ð1hÞ

2 Objectives

Central Water Commission (CWC) India’s regionalized Eq. 1a–1h for computation of UH
parameters are being followed by all practicing hydrologists in the subzone for watersheds of
any size for finding design solution of water resources problem. The peak flood (Qp), time to
peak (tp) and time base (tb), the three important parameters of the UH may either be
underestimated or over estimated in case of the same equations are adopted indiscriminately
irrespective of size of watershed, since flood propagates and attenuates through many natural
channels of varying capacity and this phenomena is termed as flood routing. In natural
channels the runoff from a single catchment comes across many lateral inflows as it goes
down to the outlet. The time, position and sectional parameters of the routing reaches and the
flood plain control the behavior of the runoff. The peak flow (Qp), time to peak (tp) and the
time base (tb) are influenced to greater extent by the above. These three basis parameters of the
 Author's personal copy
5768 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

routed hydrograph may not agree with the parameters suggested by CWC when the catch-
ments are lumped. A comparative study between the UH suggested by CWC and the routed
UH presented here and make recommendation for improvement to the hydrologists for
designing any water resources structures.
The solution to the above problem is attempted through the application of a
synthetic unit hydrograph suggested by Central water Commission (CWC), India to
a real world catchment in the Mahanadi Subzone. The preference of a synthetic unit
hydrograph to a flood hydrograph is based on the concept that unit hydrograph is also
a flood hydrograph arising out of unit rainfall and in absence of any measured
rainfall, runoff and sectional data, the problem can be solved. The problem is
attempted with the following objectives.

1) Considering the unit hydrograph of each sub catchment as the gauged hydrograph just in
the upstream of the confluence point i.e., tributaries that meet the main channel of the
watershed (corresponding node), the discharge is routed to an arbitrary downstream outlet.
2) Determine the hydrograph at the outlet after routing the concurrent discharges indepen-
dently from all the sub catchments by Muskingum linear routing method and add together
based on the principle of superposition. The outflow hydrograph, hereafter, referred as
Routed UH.
3) Compare the routed UH of the outlet with the CWC UH at the same outlet considering the
catchment as a whole. The comparison will provide adequate insight to the present
problem.

3 Hydrologic River Routing

Two approaches i.e., hydraulic routing and hydrologic routing are mainly employed to route
flood in natural channels. In hydraulic routing the flow is considered to be gradually varied and
Saint-Venant equations govern the flow wave numerically. The complete solutions of the
Saint-Venant equations are difficult to solve since the magnitude of different terms in the
momentum equation are widely varying. Muskingum two parameter flood routing is one such
hydrologic routing method which assumes that the storage in a channel reach through which a
flood is being routed is proportional to a weighted sum of inflow into and outflow from the
reach. O’Donnell (1985) proposed a three parameter Muskingum model to account for lateral
inflow expressed as a component of the main channel inflow. However, if inflow increases
substantially in the form of tributary flows, then the problem becomes very difficult to solve.
Under such cases it is essential that (i) Muskingum routing method should be applied by
terminating the routing reaches at a confluence augmenting the main channel flow by the
tributary flow for the next reach (NERC 1975), (ii) superposing after routing as per
Muskingum method, where stream flow from each tributary is routed to the outlet of the
catchment and is summed assuming that the flood wages from tributaries propagates indepen-
dently without being disturbed by downstream conditions (Choudhury 2007), (iii)
transforming the multiple gauged inflows into a single equivalent inflow at a characteristic
point in the watershed and then routing the equivalent inflow to the catchment outlet. The
characteristic point is such that the inflow given by the summation of all gauged concurrent
channel inflow is equivalent to the network inflow gauged independently at various gauging
sites (Choudhury et al. 2002).
 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5769

3.1 Muskingum Flood Routing

The linear Muskingum method of flood routing (McCarty 1938) based on a simple storage-
discharge relationship in river system, is extensively used in river engineering (Gill 1979). The
method performs better in natural channels where inertia effects and downstream influences
are very small and where the model parameters are approximately chosen for representing the
hydraulic behavior of the system (Chang et al. 1983). The linear storage relationships are
expressed as:
dS t
Continuity : ¼ I t −Ot and storage is expressed as follows : S t ¼ k ðxI t −ð1−Ot ÞÞ ð2Þ
dt

where St, It, Ot are concurrent amount of storage, inflow and outflow respectively at a given
time t, and k is the storage constant expressing the ratio between storage and discharge in a
given reach and x is a dimensionless weighting factor that varies between 0 and 0.5 for natural
rivers with an average around 0.2. This weighting factor describes the relative importance of
inflow and outflow to storage. The storage time constant, k, equates closely to the flow travel
time through the river reach (McCuen 1998). If k and x are known, routing is performed by
using:
Ot ¼ C i I t þ C 2 I t−Δt þ C 3 Ot−Δt ð3Þ
in which C1, C2, C3 are routing coefficients given by:
0:5Δt−kx
C1 ¼ ð4aÞ
ð1−xÞk þ 0:5Δt

0:5Δt þ kx
C2 ¼ ð4bÞ
ð1−xÞk þ 0:5Δt

ð1−xÞk−0:5Δt
C3 ¼ ð4cÞ
ð1−xÞk þ 0:5Δt

with the condition that C1 þ C2 þ C3 ¼ 1 ð4dÞ

In Eq. (4), Δt is the time step and It-Δt and O t-Δt are the inflow and outflow discharges at
time t-Δt. Once the C coefficients are determined, Eq. (4) is repeatedly used to determine the
outflow Ot at any time.
The values of k and x are derived from observed upstream and downstream hydrographs
extracted from historical flow records. These methods are well reviewed and are broadly
represented in five classifications: (a) graphical methods; (b) least square methods; (c) methods
of moments; (d) direct optimization; and (e) those based on Saint-Venant equations. Yoon and
Padmanabhan (1993) identified three methods for linear parameter estimation. The algorithm
included forward and backward optimization using t- statistics, an outlier filtering estimation
method and a quadratic programming algorithm.
The graphical method is generally satisfactory (Chow 1964; Linsley et al. 1975; Viessman
et al. 1989; Wilson 1990), but time consuming. The objective selection criterion exists for
 Author's personal copy
5770 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

choosing the appropriate value of × and therefore the method requires a level of subjective
interpretation to determine a value that optimizes the linear relationship (Gelegenis and Serrano
2000; Yoon and Padmanabhan 1993; Chang et al. 1983). The least square scheme is based on
minimizing the sum of squares of the deviations between observed storage and computed
storage for a given inflow and outflow hydrograph (Gill 1978; Birkhead and James 1997; Al-
Humoud and Esen 2006). The methods of moments are similar and are based on relating the
first and second moments of the instantaneous unit hydrograph(IUH) of the Muskingum reach
to the Muskingum routing parameters, k and x (Dooge 1973). The method of direct optimiza-
tion is based on minimizing the difference between observed and computed hydrograph to
determine directly the routing coefficients of the Muskingum model without explicitly estimat-
ing k and x (Gelegenis and Serrano 2000). This was modified by Cunge (1969) including the
effects of geometrical and resistance properties of the river reach in the original Muskingum
method to develop the Muskingum-Cunge (M-C) model. In the M-C flood routing procedure,
the necessity of calibration that characterizes the Muskingum method is not required and
routing parameters, k and x, are obtained from hydraulic properties of the reach using:
 
ΔX 1 Q
k¼ and x ¼ 1− ð5Þ
C 2 BSCΔX

Where parameters k and x are as described above and C is the flood wave celerity, ΔX is the
longitudinal channel distance increment, Q is the discharge and B is the top width of the flow
section at downstream outlet.
Perumal et al. (2007) presented a methodology for developing the rating curve at ungauged site
in a restrictive sense that considers the routing parameters (C1, C2, C3 in Eq. 4a–4c) based on
variable parameter Muskingum stage hydrograph (VPMS) routing method. These parameters
vary at every routing time step (Δt) corresponding to the normal discharge and the recorded stage
hydrograph. But when the catchment is ungauged in the ideal sense i.e., neither stage hydrographs
nor the discharges are available, such method can make the present analysis more completed.
In the present study, the synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH) as suggested by Central Water
Commission (CWC), India for sub-zone 3(d) is considered as inflow hydrograph and the
components are determined using the relations Eq. 1a–1h. The value of k is determined by first
part of Eq. (5) and x is estimated using the following simple equation (Wilson 1990;
Subramanya 2000; Sadeghi and Singh 2010):
0:5V m
x¼ ð6Þ
1:7 þ V m
 
where V m ¼ 1n R2=3 S 1=2 is the average velocity of the flow in m.s−1 determined by Manning’s
equation with the variables as R=Hydraulic radius (m) and S=average slope and n=Rugocity
coefficient.

4 Material and Methods

4.1 Study Area

The Brutang watershed of Mahanadi Sub Zone 3(d) between Longitude 20°22′ to
20°23′ N and Latitude 84°81′to 84°48′ E is selected as the study area (Fig. 1). The
 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5771

20022’ to 20023’ N Latitude

84081’ to 84048’ E
Fig. 1 The Brutang watershed of Mahanadi Sub Zone 3(d)

watershed falls under area that divides the Mahanadi middle and lower sub basin
having general elevation of 200–500 m. The area generally experiences four distinct
seasons, namely the cold weather, the hot weather, the southwest monsoon and the
post monsoon. In cold weather, the winds are light and blow either from north or
north-east and the atmosphere is bright. The hot season commences in March and
lasts till the middle of June till the south-west monsoon sets in. Thunderstorms are
quite frequent in hot season bringing some rainfall comparatively higher in hilly
regions. Highest humidity occurs during July and August. The mean annual precipi-
tation of the study area is 1171 mm mostly received from June to October. The
rainfall is not continuous but occurs in spells of varying durations and intensities. The
study area experiences maximum temperature of 40° C in the month of May mini-
mum temperature of 12 °C in the month of December. The study catchment has area
of 799 Km2 up to the outlet point at Takara gauged by the state authorities. It is
mostly mountainous and with thick forest cover in most of the area. The hydrometric
stations at Takara records daily discharges and water levels. The stream discharges are
measured from available stage discharge relationship according to the daily stages of
the river. But, for the present study, the discharge and rainfall data have not been
considered, since the present work is related with the unit hydrograph parameters, not
the runoff parameters.

4.2 Model Formulation

This study considers SUH parameters suggested by CWC, India with respect to their appli-
cation in various sizes of catchments in the Mahanadi Sub Zone 3(d). The formulation of the
models involves various steps as described below:
 Author's personal copy
5772 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

1) Study area map is prepared using topographical maps (1:50,000) provided by Survey of
India. The watersheds of each tributary that meet the main channel including the head
catchment are delineated (Fig. 1) from the prepared map in the GIS environment using
Arc GIS 9.3. Under this step total 75 no sub-watersheds are identified from node 0 to 117
(Outlet at Takara) and the size of the sub-watershed varies from less than 1 to 130 Km2.
2) The sub-watershed area (A), its length of the tributary (L), length of the tributary up to the
centre of gravity (Lc) of the sub-watershed and the slope of the tributary (S) and are also
determined. From the prepared map of the study area, the main channel is identified. The
distance of each reach (ΔX) starting from the head catchment (node-0) to the outlet (node-
117) is measured.
3) The UH is plotted after computing the parameters (Qp, tp, tb, WR50, WR75, W50, W75)
using Eq. 1a–1h. The discharges ordinates of the UH at 1 h time step are computed from
the UH plot and these are the inflow discharge ordinates at corresponding time steps.
4) The UH of each sub-watersheds is checked for unit rainfall. Adjustments are made in the
recession limb without disturbing Qp, tp and tb such that the area under the UH becomes
unity. In this process as Qp, tp and tb are not disturbed and only slight variation occurs in
parameters like W50 and W 75, hence the shape of the UH is acceptable.
5) Qp, the peak discharges as determined in the previous step are considered to be the
measured discharges just in the upstream point of the confluence point of the tributary and
the main stream (corresponding node).
6) Subsequently, Muskingum linear routing equations (Eqs. 3, 4a–4c) are applied to deter-
mine the hydrographs at any downstream outlet (Node-4, 10, 29, 56, 73, 78, 99, 117,
Fig. 2a–f) by considering the concurrent discharges (Qp) from the tributaries. The
parameters k and x cannot be determined using Eq. (5), as no sectional parameters are
available; since the study area is un-gauged i.e., no downstream flow data nor sectional
parameters are available for using Eq. (5). However, Eq. (5) can be used if the shape of the
channel section at the outlet point is assumed. In the present case the channel section at the
outlet is assumed to be parabolic and wide.
For a parabolic section, according to Viessman et al. (1989)
11
celerity; C ¼ Vm ð7Þ
9

V m being the average velocity as described under Eq. (6). In the present case the value
of n is assumed to be 0.350 for natural channels.
For a wide parabolic section,, the hydraulic radius (R) is given by (Koegelenberg et al.
1997)

2yW 2
R¼ ð8Þ
3W 2 þ 8y2
pffiffiffiffi
Where W=width of the flow section= 4:71 Q (Lacey’s equation cited by Punmia and
Pande 1981 and Tewolde 2005),
 3=5
Q n
y ¼ depth of flow ¼ ð9Þ
0:508 WS

and Q, S, n are as described earlier.

 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5773

Fig. 2 a, b, c, d, e and f The catchments up to Node- 10, 29, 35, 73, 78 and 99 all among the Brutang watershed
of Mahanadi Sub Zone 3(d)
 Author's personal copy
5774 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

7) After determining k, x, in previous steps, the routing coefficients are calculated using
Eq. (4a–4c). The upstream hydrograph from each sub-watershed is then routed to the
downstream outlet point independently using Eq. (3). The routed concurrent discharges
from each watershed are added to get the UH at the outlet. It is based on the principle of
superposition after routing, which signifies each flow is independent to propagate to the
outlet without being influenced by downstream condition and no lateral flow except the
tributary flow plays its role.
8) Then the UH at the outlet is compared with corresponding UH suggested by CWC
(Eq. 1a–1h) considering the watershed as a whole.

5 Results and Discussion

The results show that values of UH parameters computed with CWC and routing method
differ. The relation of these parameters with catchment characteristics L, Lc and S also differ
with methods and are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. The parameters are better correlated
with the catchment characteristics in case of routing method than CWC method; the R2 values
are the indicators of such relationships. The routed UH parameters are presented in Table 2. It
can be observed from Table 2 that the peak discharges in case of node 4 to 10 (Catchment area
up to 238.718 km2) is more than that calculated by CWC- UH. The catchment up to node 10 is
hilly with higher longitudinal slope of the main channel. From node 10 to node 78 with
catchment area between 238 and 583 km2 with moderate longitudinal slope where the peaks
by CWC UH and the routed UH matches closely (Fig. 3). From node 99 onwards the peak
again starts rising up because the slope of the channel becomes very mild. Since the size of the
present study area is limited to 799 km2, the present concept could not be projected further, but
logically because of milder slope of the channel as the catchment size increases, the peak of the
routed UH will remain higher than the CWC UH. Of course, not only the size but also other
geomorphologic parameters also govern this variation. For smaller size watersheds with steep
slopes, it can be always recommended to be governed by routed UH. It is obvious that as the
peak flow Qp increases, the time to peak tp decreases as evident from Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. This
shows that the peak flow occurs in a shorter time period than the CWC UH. The peak
discharge Qp and the time to peak tp being the important parameters of the flood hydrograph
as far as the flood analysis is concerned, the recommended UH parameters of CWC should be
suitably adjusted considering the routing effects.
In both the cases, the UHs are drawn considering the discharge ordinates at start of the
hydrograph, point at W50 and W75 on the rising limb, point of peak flow, point of W50 and W75
on recession limb and the end of hydrograph.. The rest points are locally adjusted in order to
bring the area under UH to unity which is a bit difficult exercise. Assuming the intermediate
points at W50 and W75 insignificant, any number of intermediate points between t=0, and tb
can be considered in order to generate a smooth curve with the criterion that the area under the
curve should be unity. In order to improve upon the problem of manual fitting, the two
parameter Gamma and the three parameter Beta distribution as suggested by Bhunya et al.
(2007) are used to fit in any number of intermediate points. The equivalent 2p Gamma curve of
the routed UH is determined using the following equation.

1  t n−1 −tk
qt ¼ e ð10Þ
k Γn k
Table 1 UH parameters using CWC guidelines

Basin A L Lc S L*Lc/S0.5 Qp qp tp WR75 W75 WR50 W50 tb

Basin 4 119.772 26.043 12.886 35.82 56.07 46.79 0.390 5.03 1.27 2.77 2.51 5.57 21
Basin10 238.718 26.798 9.63 24.203 52.46 76.61 0.320 6.6 1.52 3.45 2.95 6.92 26
Basin29 363.664 38.019 14.884 13.952 151.50 117.86 0.320 6.51 1.51 3.41 2.93 6.85 26
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing

Basin56 505.264 46.598 14.472 12.29 192.36 156.91 0.311 6.91 1.57 3.58 3.03 7.18 27
Basin73 577.505 55.539 22.244 10.362 383.79 156.98 0.272 8.3 1.77 4.16 3.39 8.32 31
Basin78 583.395 58.252 24.927 9.88 461.96 153.11 0.262 8.71 1.83 4.33 3.49 8.64 32
Basin99 758.038 63.419 28.622 9.39 592.36 189.80 0.250 9.3 1.92 4.56 3.62 9.1 34
Author's personal copy

Basin117 799.83 71.925 35.444 0.86 2748.99 149.80 0.187 13.88 2.51 6.33 4.61 12.55 48
5775
 5776

Table 2 Routed UH parameters

Basin A L Lc S L*Lc/S0.5 Qp qp tp WR75 W75 WR50 W50 tb

Basin 4 119.772 26.043 12.886 35.82 56.07 48.1 0.402 4.5 1.8 3.8 2.5 5.5 19
Basin10 238.718 26.798 9.63 24.203 52.46 85.0 0.356 5.5 2 3.5 3.2 7.1 24
Basin 29 363.664 38.019 14.884 13.952 151.50 102.0 0.280 5.8 3.1 6 4.1 9.1 26
Basin 56 505.264 46.598 14.472 12.29 192.36 138.0 0.273 7.2 2.7 4.7 4.9 8.8 28
Basin73 577.505 55.539 22.244 10.362 383.79 148.0 0.256 7.8 2.5 5 5.5 10 30
Basin78 583.395 58.252 24.927 9.88 461.96 146.5 0.251 7.6 3.7 6.6 5.3 10.4 31
Basin99 758.038 63.419 28.622 9.39 592.36 189.0 0.249 8 2.6 5.3 5.2 10.1 31
Author's personal copy

Basin117 799.83 71.925 35.444 0.86 2748.99 164.0 0.205 7.7 3.4 7.3 5.3 12.6 46
M.K. Bhuyan et al.
Table 3 UH parameters using two-parameter gamma distribution (2PGD) method

Basin A L Lc S L*Lc/S0.5 Qp qp tp WR75 W75 WR50 W50 tb

Basin 4 119.772 26.043 12.886 35.82 56.07 48.0 0.401 5.4 1.85 4.24 2.68 6.58 23
Basin10 238.718 26.798 9.63 24.203 52.46 84.8 0.355 6.51 2.06 4.8 3.04 7.43 26
Basin 29 363.664 38.019 14.884 13.952 151.50 101.4 0.279 6.6 2.55 5.95 3.67 9.37 29
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing

Basin56 505.264 46.598 14.472 12.29 192.36 138.0 0.273 7.5 2.65 6.15 3.85 9.65 33
Basin73 577.505 55.539 22.244 10.362 383.79 146.8 0.254 8.5 2.9 6.7 4.2 10.3 33
Basin78 583.395 58.252 24.927 9.88 461.96 146.3 0.251 9.45 2.95 6.7 4.35 10.5 34
Basin99 758.038 63.419 28.622 9.39 592.36 188.0 0.248 9.9 3 6.8 4.4 10.7 35
Author's personal copy

Basin 117 799.83 71.925 35.444 0.86 2748.99 163.4 0.204 10 3.5 8.1 5.1 12.8 35
5777
 5778

Table 4 UH parameters using three-parameter beta distribution (3PBD)

Basin A L Lc S L*Lc/S0.5 Qp qp tp WR75 W75 WR50 W50 tb

Basin 4 119.772 26.043 12.886 35.82 56.07 41.548 0.347 5.4 2.41 5.24 3.52 7.94 19
Basin10 238.718 26.798 9.63 24.203 52.46 73.525 0.308 6.51 2.75 5.92 3.97 8.84 21
Basin 29 363.664 38.019 14.884 13.952 151.50 86.214 0.237 6.6 3.39 7.74 4.72 11.57 28
Basin56 505.264 46.598 14.472 12.29 192.36 118.15 0.234 7.5 3.5 7.8 4.99 11.75 28
Basin73 577.505 55.539 22.244 10.362 383.79 126.417 0.219 8.5 3.79 8.33 5.41 12.53 30
Basin78 583.395 58.252 24.927 9.88 461.96 128.529 0.220 9.45 3.8 8.2 5.5 12.4 31
Basin99 758.038 63.419 28.622 9.39 592.36 167.077 0.220 9.9 3.8 8.15 5.53 12.37 32
Author's personal copy

Basin 117 799.83 71.925 35.444 0.86 2748.99 140.223 0.175 10 4.65 10.36 6.58 15.63 38
M.K. Bhuyan et al.
 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5779

Plot of Qp Vs Catchment Area

200
180
160
Qp in Cumecs

140
120
CWC UH
100 ROUTED UH
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Catchment Area in SqKm

Fig. 3 Plot of Qp vs catchment area

where

n ¼ 5:53 β 1:7 þ 1:04 ; f or 0:01 < β < 0:35 ð11Þ

¼ 6:29 β 1:998 þ 1:157; f or β ≥ 0:35 ð12Þ

And
tp
k ¼ Scale factor ¼ ð13Þ
n−1
Where β=Dimensionless Nash parameter=qptp,qp &tp are the peak discharge and time to
peak ordinate of the routed UH respectively.
The 2p Gamma curve of the routed UH indicates that both the curves are almost identical
except that the peak gets slightly shifted to the right and with slight increase in tp. The
corresponding power relations of different UH parameters with L, Lc, and S are given in
Table 3 and R2 values indicate better correlation. The study shows that routed UH is an
improvement over CWC UH and the equivalent 2p gamma UH removes the practice of
manual fitting of the various points of the UH to get unit area. Similar, study also generates
the equivalent 3p Beta curve of the routed UH. In this case, it indicates that the peak gets
reduced as indicated in Table 4 and tb gets extended. The UH parameters are relatively poorly
related to L, Lc and S as compared to 2p Gamma Curve. But 3p Beta Curve enjoys the freedom
of both positive and negative skewness and is applicable for all type of situations. The Fig. 4
gives a graphical representation of routed, 2p Gamma and 3p Beta UH curve for the sub basin
up to node 99 (Table 5).

6 Conclusion

The study attempts the application of synthetic unit hydrograph approach for determination of
design flood in the small catchments. The following conclusions are inferred from the analysis
results. The peak discharge of the routed UH is higher than the CWC UH in the hilly
catchment having steeper slope. Similar results are also observed when the catchment area
 Author's personal copy
5780 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

200
2PBD UH
2PGD UH
ROUTED UH

160
RUNOFF IN CUMECS

120

80

40

0
0 10 20 30 40
TIME IN HOURS
Fig. 4 The routed UH, 2p gamma and 3p beta UH for node- 99

increases and with milder slope in plane. Both the routed UH and the CWC UH behave
similarly for the catchment having areas from 200 to 600 km2 But for the catchment area lower
than this limit with steeper slope and for larger catchment area with milder slope, the CWC UH
does not hold good. Based on the above findings it is recommended that the peak discharge of

Table 5 UH formula using CWC UH, Routed UH, 2p Gamma UH, and 3p Beta UH with fitting COD

UH parameters CWC UH Routed UH 2p Gamma UH 3p Beta UH

qp 1.260*(tp)−0.725, 0.660*(LLc/S0.5)−0.15, 0.660*(LLc/S0.5)−0.15, 0.560*(LLc/S0.5)−0.15,

R2 =0.443 R2 =0.901 R2 =0.901 R2 =0.884
tp 1.757*(LLc/S0.5)0.261, 2.118*(qp)−0.890, 2.265*(qp)−0.96, 2.025*(qp)−0.93,
R2 =0.725 R2 =0.813 R2 =0.831 R2 =0.780
WR75 0.527*(qp)−0.932, 0.756*(qp)−0.980, 0.756*(qp)−0.970, 0.876*(qp)−0.96,
R2 =0.889 R2 =0.716 R2 =0.993 R2 =0.994
W75 0.961*(qp)−1.125, 1.318*(qp)−1.06, 1.759*(qp)−0.96, 1.834*(qp)−0.99,
R2 =0.784 R2 =0.788 R2 =0.998 R2 =0.999
WR50 1.150*(qp)−0.829, 0.884*(qp)−1.25, 1.1*(qp)−0.99, 1.321*(qp)−0.92,
R2 =0.714 R2 =0.852 R2 =0.988 R2 =0.980
W50 1.974*(qp)−1.10, 1.968*(qp)−1.18, 2.663*(qp)−0.99, 2.748*(qp)−0.99,
R2 =0.928 R2 =0.988 R2 =0.999 R2 =0.999
tb 8.154*(qp)−1.104, 6.735*(qp)−1.13, 12.74*(qp)−0.68, 6.195*(qp)−1.05,
R2 =0.810 R2 =0.910 R2 =0.89 R2 =0.987
 Author's personal copy
Flood hydrograph with synthetic unit hydrograph routing 5781

the CWC UH should be corrected by introducing a suitable multiplying factor while designing
water resources structures in hilly as well as plane areas. The CWC UH is synthetically
prepared considering data of some bridge catchments. The geomorphologic parameters (L, Lc,
S) of these bridge catchments governs the UH relations. The present study can be further
refined by considering more number of catchments of varying size and longitudinal channel
slope along with other geomorphologic parameters such as basin perimeter, basin length,
drainage density, basin relief etc.

References

Al-Humoud JM, Esen II (2006) Approximate methods for the estimation of Muskingum flood routing param-
eters. Water Resour Manag 20:979–990
Bhunya PK, Mishra SK, Ojha CSP, Berndtsson R (2004) Parameter estimation of beta distribution for unit
hydrograph derivation. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 9(4):325–332
Bhunya PK, Berndtsson R, Ojha CSP, Mishra SK (2007) Suitability of gamma, chi-square, Weibull, and beta
distributions as synthetic unit hydrographs. J Hydrol 334:28–38
Bhunya PK, Berndtsson R, Singh PK, Hubert P (2008) Comparison between Weibull and Gamma distributions
to derive synthetic unit hydrograph using Horton ratios. Water Resour Res 44:1–17
Birkhead AL, James CS (1997) Synthesis of rating curves from local stage and remote discharge monitoring
using nonlinear Muskingum routing. J Hydrol 205:52–65
Central Water Commission (1997) Flood estimation report for Mahanadi sub-zone—3(d) (Revised), New Delhi
Chang CN, Singer EDM, Koussis AD (1983) On the mathematics of storage routing. J Hydrol 61:357–370
Choudhury P (2007) Multiple inflows Muskingum routing model. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 12:473–481
Choudhury P, Shrivastava RK, Narulkar SM (2002) Flood routing in river networks using equivalent
Muskingum inflow. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 7(6):413–419
Chow VT (1964) Hand book of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York
Cunge JA (1969) On the subject of flood propagation computation method (Muskingum method). J Hydraul Res
7(2):205–230
Dooge JCI (1959) A general theory of the unit hydrograph. J Geophys Res 64:241–256
Dooge JCI (1973) Linear theory of hydrologic system. US Dep Agric Res Serv Tech Bull No. 1468
Espey WH Jr, Winslow DE (1974) Urban flood frequency characteristics. Proc ASCE 100 HY2 100:179–293
Gelegenis JJ, Serrano SE (2000) Analysis of Muskingum equation based on flood routing schemes. J Hydraul
Eng ASCE 5(1):102–105
Gill MA (1978) Flood routing by Muskingum method. J Hydrol 36:353–363
Gill MA (1979) Critical examination of the Muskingum method. Nord Hydrol 10:261–270
Gray DM (1964) Synthetic hydrographs for small drainage areas. Proc ASCE 87 HY4:33–54
Haktanir T, Sezen N (1990) Suitability of two-parameter gamma distribution and three-parameter beta distribu-
tion as synthetic hydrographs in Anatolia. Hydrol Sci J 35(2):167–184
Jena SK, Tiwari KN (2006) Modeling synthetic unit hydrograph parameters with geomorphologic parameters of
watersheds. J Hydrol 319(14):1–14
Koegelenberg FH, Lategang MT, Mulder DJ, Reinders FB, Stimie CM, Viljoen PD (1997) Irrigation design
manual, ch-7. Institute of Agriculture Engineering, Silverton, RSA, pp 1–26
Linsley RK, Kohler MA, Paulhus JLH (1975) Hydrology for engineers, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York
McCarty GT (1938) The unit hydrograph and flood routing. US Army Corps of Engineers, Proceeding of
conference of North Atlantic Division. US Engineers Office, USA
McCuen RH (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Nash J (1959) Synthetic determination of unit hydrograph parameters. J Geophys Res 64(1):111–115
NERC (1975) Flood routing studies. Report no. V-III. Natural Environment Research Council, London
O’Donnell T (1985) A direct three-parameter Muskingum procedure incorporating lateral inflow. Hydrol Sci J
30(4):479–496
Perumal M, Moramarco T, Sahoo B, Barbetta S (2007) A methodology for discharge estimation and rating curve
development at ungauged river sites. Water Resour Res 43(2):1–22
Punmia BC, Pande BBL (1981) Irrigation and water power engineering. Standard Publishers Distributors, Delhi
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Valdes JB (1979) The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response. Water Resour Res
15(6):1409–1420
Rosso R (1984) Nash model relations to Horton ratios. Water Resour Res 20(7):914–920
 Author's personal copy
5782 M.K. Bhuyan et al.

Sadeghi SH, Singh JK (2010) Derivation of flood hydrographs for ungauged upstream subwatersheds using main
outlet hydrograph. J Hydrol Eng 15:1059–1069
SCS (2002) Design of hydrograph. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
Sherman LK (1932) Streamflow from rainfall by the unit hydrograph method. Eng News Rec 108:501–505
Snyder FF (1938) Synthetic unit hydrographs. Trans Am Geophys Union 19:447–454
Subramanya K (2000) Engineering hydrology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New Delhi
Taylor AB, Schwarz HE (1952) Unit hydrograph lag and peak flow related to basin characteristics. Trans Am
Geophys Union 33:235–246
Tewolde MH (2005) Flood routing in ungauged catchments using Muskingum methods. University of KwaZulu-
Natal, Dissertation
Viessman W, Knapp JW, Lewis GL (1989) Introduction to hydrology. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, pp
149–355
Wilson EM (1990) Engineering hydrology. McMillan, Hongkong
Yoon J, Padmanabhan G (1993) Parameter estimation of linear and nonlinear Muskingum models. J Water
Resour Plan Manag 119(5):600–610

View publication stats